As pictured in the Renaissance Downtowns' Comprehensive plan, the Plan of Conservation and Development is a focal point in the redevelopment of Bristol. According to State of Connecticut Statutes, the POCD shall "...be a statement of policies, goals and standards for the physical and economic development of the municipality, ..." It appears to be out of balance as housing is mentioned nearly 100 times more than jobs in the document. From the beginning, it would appear that the outcome of the plan has been predetermined in part long before the public participation process began due to state mandates. My perspective has not changed. This blog is an effort to extirpate the data and identify the top-down central planning as well as the bottom up grassroots input in an effort to preserve what representation the general public has. As you can see in the diagram on the right, Renaissance Downtowns' development strategy was inserted into the original draft of the Plan of Development. It was subsequently removed as controversy over the developer surfaced.
The first public workshop for the POCD was supposed to be an effort to provide public input into the plan. As you can see from the images below, the members of the public were outnumbered by members of Bristol's Planning Commission and some of their family members. There were about five Bristol residents whom attended as well as one member of the local press.
Glen Chadler of Planimetrics graciously granted me a short interview prior to the workshop commencing. In conversation after the interview, he agreed that it was unfortunate that so few members of the community were in attendance for the workshop. An article in the local paper can have a significant impact on the drawing of attendants. Unfortunately that did not happen in Bristol he indicated. There were however a few "Bristol Rising" members in the audience whom were apparently prompted of the event and their input can be observed in the final draft policy document.
Some residents played connect-the-dots while placing the dots on the map.
What I found to be quite astonishing was the representation of paper money as an indicator of development preference. I can only wonder if the participants associated their choices with the high costs to bring it to fruition. Of course, as the federal reserve has shown the American people as of late, when it comes to paper money, money is no object. I wanted to put the whole booty on "sprawl development" but there was no option to do so. Therefore I kept my booty as a souvenir and chronicled in video.
As you can see from the thumbnail below, residential development and housing diversity received the smallest pile of loot regardless of the attendants. This further supports my assertions that high-density apartments are not what Bristol residents support for future development. Among those whom commented at the meeting were two non-residents. One is in the real estate market and the other is an investor for the downtown development. Their input is represented in the final document.
The city has had several special meetings of the planning commission dedicated to the Plan of Conservation and Development's creation. As the only member of the general public in attendance, the chairman allowed me to participate in the discussion after raising my hand. I had encouraged others to attend as well to provide their input but many were convinced that the plan had little to do with the downtown project as residents were encouraged to attend the Downtown Development Corporation's public meetings to voice their concerns. There were however a few meetings that brought a few looking to provide their input. At the first meeting that this occurred the was a heated debate about the encouragement of density development in the neighborhood of one very concerned resident.
The outcome was not a favorable one. At least one member of the commission insisted that the meeting was not a public hearing and therefore public comment should not be allowed. This was contested by myself as the City Charter states clearly:
"Sec. 49. - Boards and commissions. Meetings. All board meetings shall be public and all meetings of boards or commissions whose duties involve the transaction of public business shall be held at accessible stated public places and all meetings and the minutes thereof shall be open to the public. Any elector shall have the right to appear and be heard at any such meeting as to any business proper to come before said board or commission."
Upon entering the next meeting we found these signs posted. There is technically nothing wrong with the rules that were applied as they do in fact comply with the charter. The unfortunate thing is that there were four members of the public that attended with the intention of offering some input. After an hour of patiently waiting they left, never to return. This drew the ire of more than one resident whom found the action reprehensible. Some resident prefer not to comment prior to a meeting. Does two hours or more wait to make public comment constitute any form of accommodation in your opinion?
The video below illustrates how the language contained in the Plan of Development has an effect on the gathering of capital. Should this fact shadow the will of the residents who provided input? The outcome of the POCD hearing and adoption shall in this case put an important question to the test.
The representative from the City of Waterbury on conference call is concerned that the Regional Council of Government's municipal members' Plans of Development are in compliance with the State's Plan of Development in the video below.
The question to be tested is :
"Is Bristol's Plan of Conservation a top-down plan or a bottom-up one?"
The issue of municipal control vs. regional control in the planning process is discussed by Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley members at their second meeting in the video below. Municipal plans are designated as policy documents by Connecticut general statutes. The City of Bristol recently joined this COG as the state realigned planning agencies in a manner that some say resembles county government. A few bills moving through the state legislature would solidify this transformation. Some legislation would open the floodgates for Tax Incremental Financing for municipalities in the State of Connecticut without the oversight of the state nor protections of citizen-driven referendum. These funding mechanism have bankrupted many a California city for specifically the same purpose they are being pushed in Connecticut: To fund Transit-Oriented Development projects. . The stakes are high for those living paycheck-to-paycheck.
As you can see in the video below, the City of Shelton's planning board representative indicates that their planned development allows the municipality to keep social services down. Shelton's tax rates have been consistently low without an increase in mill rate for 20 years. The city is growing faster than any other in the COG.
Bristol's approach in the Plan of Development appears to be a sharp contrast to that. A municipality with more affordable housing than all surrounding towns appears on the path to create more. Of course, the plan is not limited to the Depot Square parcel. The map below indicates the downtown "Enterprise Zone" may be a future "Housing Opportunity Zone." Housing Incentive Zones are customarily created to draw transit-oriented development to a municipality because low-income riders are the demographic that primarily occupy buses on off-peak operation hours and are typically included in transit-oriented projects due to federal mandates.
WILL STATE GUIDELINES FORCE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE BUILT IN BRISTOL?
Municipal plans of Development serve as a guide for regionally planned projects in regional centers such as Bristol's downtown.
Section 10 of Bristol's NEW 2015-2025 Plan of Conservation and Development's, "GUIDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT" section states:
"As of 2014, approximately 13.5% of Bristol's housing stock was considered affordable (governmentally assisted or available to moderate income house‐holds), based upon the definition of "affordable housing" established under Section 8‐39a of the Connecticut General Statutes. The state minimum threshold for affordable housing is 10%. Bristol's affordable housing stock also exceeds the state average as well as that of surrounding towns.
"Only About 5 percent of those surveyed for the Plan of Conservation and Development identified a price‐related housing arrangement (affordable,subsidized, family) as their next housing choice.
Section 10 of Bristol's NEW 2015-2025 Plan of Conservation and Development's, "GUIDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT" section states:
"As of 2014, approximately 13.5% of Bristol's housing stock was considered affordable (governmentally assisted or available to moderate income house‐holds), based upon the definition of "affordable housing" established under Section 8‐39a of the Connecticut General Statutes. The state minimum threshold for affordable housing is 10%. Bristol's affordable housing stock also exceeds the state average as well as that of surrounding towns.
"Only About 5 percent of those surveyed for the Plan of Conservation and Development identified a price‐related housing arrangement (affordable,subsidized, family) as their next housing choice.
HOWEVER, in accordance with the State of Connecticut's General Statutes 8-23, the Municipal Plan of Conservation and Development MUST :
"Show concentration of development around transportation nodes and along major transportation corridors to support the viability of transportation options and land reuse
*Show the commission's recommendation for the most desirable use of land within the municipality for residential, recreational, commercial, industrial and other purposes and for the most desirable density of population in the SEVERAL parts of the municipality.
*be designed to promote with the greatest efficiency and economy the coordinated development of the municipality and the general welfare and prosperity of its people.
*integration of planning across all levels of government to address issues on a local, regional and state-wide basis,
*make provision for the development of housing opportunities, including opportunities for multifamily dwellings, consistent with soil types, terrain and infrastructure capacity, for all residents of the municipality and the planning region in which the municipality is located, as designated by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management under section 16a-4a,
*promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing, including housing for both low and moderate income households, and encourage the development of housing which will meet the housing needs identified in the housing plan prepared pursuant to section 8-37t and in the housing component and the other components of the state plan of conservation and development prepared pursuant to chapter 297.
*In preparing such plan the commission shall consider focusing development and revitalization in areas with existing or planned physical infrastructure."
THESE STATE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOUND IN OUR PLAN FOR THE NEXT 10 YRS OF BRISTOL'S DEVELOPMENT
In section 10.2.2. of the POCD, "Housing Design" it is stated,
"Encourage the appropriate design of housing in order to meet community needs in the future.
In section 10.2.3., "Housing Diversity", it is stated, "Encourage the provision of a diverse array of attractive, decent, safe and sanitary housing to meet the social and economic needs of Bristol’s current and future population."
and in Section 10.3.3., "Housing Diversity", it states.:
1. Encourage the diversification of the local housing stock in appropriate locations (such as near services and/or transit) to meet the changing housing needs of current and future residents.
2. To help address current and future housing needs, consider permitting multi‐family development of appropriate density and design to be located:
in downtown Bristol in mixed use buildings,
along major commercial highway corridors, and
in other business districts or other suitable locations.
3. Strive to encourage the provision of:
affordable housing for the elderly who need it,
and affordable housing for families and individuals who need it.
In section 10.2.2. of the POCD, "Housing Design" it is stated,
"Encourage the appropriate design of housing in order to meet community needs in the future.
In section 10.2.3., "Housing Diversity", it is stated, "Encourage the provision of a diverse array of attractive, decent, safe and sanitary housing to meet the social and economic needs of Bristol’s current and future population."
and in Section 10.3.3., "Housing Diversity", it states.:
1. Encourage the diversification of the local housing stock in appropriate locations (such as near services and/or transit) to meet the changing housing needs of current and future residents.
2. To help address current and future housing needs, consider permitting multi‐family development of appropriate density and design to be located:
in downtown Bristol in mixed use buildings,
along major commercial highway corridors, and
in other business districts or other suitable locations.
3. Strive to encourage the provision of:
affordable housing for the elderly who need it,
and affordable housing for families and individuals who need it.
THIS IS ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL POLICY! Bristol ALREADY has more than it's fair share of diverse affordable housing stock!
Bristol's Final Draft of the Plan of Development identifies the local area's percentages of affordable housing as follows.:
Bristol 13.45%
State 11.26%
Farmington 7.73%
Plainville 7.44%
Plymouth 7.11%
Wolcott 7.11%
Southington 5.71%
Burlington 2.04%
Bristol's percentage of multi-family also exceeds both state averages as well as the percentages of surrounding towns. The Final Draft of the Plan of Development identifies those town's percentages of Multi-Family housing as follows.:
Bristol 39%
State 35%
Plainville 25%
Farmington 24%
Southington 16%
Plymouth 14%
Wolcott 12%
Burlington 7%
Bristol's percentage of renter-occupied housing also exceeds both state averages as well as the percentages of surrounding towns. The Final Draft of the Plan of Development identifies those town's percentages of renter-occupied housing as follows.:
Percent Renter Occupied
Percent Renter Occupied
Bristol 33%
Plainville 32%
State 32%
Farmington 23%
Southington 19%
Plymouth 18%
Wolcott 10%
Burlington 4%
One of the major problems with these Plans of Conservation and Development is that they are all basically identical in the manner that they dictate state policy of mixed-use transit-oriented development, which is the hardest type of development to find investment capital for. The state government that mandates the mixed-use smartgrowth development subsidizes it on the state level, encourages municipalities to further subsidize it with bonding, tax-incremental financing and future revenue schemes that place all the risk onto taxpayers. These types of projects are also inclusive of "affordable housing". What people need to ask themselves if they themselves want to live in a mixed-use public-transit-oriented community of dense development (such as the urban centers in the state that are already well established in a natural fashion) before they consent to funding it. Otherwise they may find themselves or their neighbors eventually forced out of their homes and into one of these developments due to the state's oppressive tax climate with more increases in the way.
As the survey indicates, less than 40% of residents in Bristol are working full-time and are likely on a fixed budget. Bristol is also the 13th most distressed community in the state with an average of one home foreclosure per day in the last quarter of 2014. Many are at a financial tipping point and this is likely the cause of the population decline as of late. Only jobs will stimulate real growth in Bristol.
Many have been silent about how the Plan of Development relates to Forestville. The city has apparently worked with a small group of individuals and organizations to complete a Forestville Plan that contains much of the same language as the plans for the Depot Project and the 2011 West End Plan that includes the straightening of route 72 and the "recently proposed" "bicycle paths". Like Newington, the plan will likely create two new urbanized areas along the busway as planning documents indicate.
Perhaps mandated, perhaps because of the low participation rate of the workshop, or perhaps it is a standard of practice, but for whatever reason the City of Bristol had a telephone survey of Bristol residents completed to provide input into the Plan of Development. Four-hundred heads-of households' answers were included in the raw data and conclusions. At this point one can again see the apparent disconnect between the respondents' answers and the POCD's conclusions. Development strategies can be seen in the outline to the right. The following images are from the raw data from the survey from Great Blue Research. The conclusions of the raw data surveyed from the contracted firm greatly differ from those in the city's POCD and I found it necessary to contest it in several forums both online and at city meetings. The will of residents should be upheld!
Some members of the community objected to contesting the conclusions of the survey. Should it's ability to attract market capital for something that the residents do not want take precedent over the preservation of representative government and the ability of the public to access public information for a survey commissioned with taxpayer money?
One member of the public addressed the issue of the lack of public outreach at the second POCD workshop. It would cost the city little money to advertise the opportunity to participate.
I took upon an effort to bring the raw data to the attention to the general public on a few of Bristol's social network groups. That effort was met with hostility by a select few individuals. The screenshots, data and links were subsequently deleted. The sad fact is that public discourse is consistently stifled when it comes to the TOD Agenda in Bristol's social networks. Some dissenting opinions led to the removal of individuals and a "no arguing with the administrator" policy. Even more disturbing is the statements and assertions of some of these individuals. Is "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil." their policy?
One would expect those whom are advocating for your tax dollars to be spent on the Housing Agenda would know all of the details but they refer to facts as opinions, documents as unrelated and defunct, and state policies as conspiracy theories. These propagandists use their slogans and narratives to back up their assertions. Any debate must be pointed towards agreement... or else.
Apparently blind with positivity, this faction of the cabal insists this is the only way. The consensus in some circles is that their goal is to promote the agenda of high-density housing in Bristol and to immediately stifle any dissent with ridicule. These are the hallmark tactics of left-wing radicals. When confronted with a direct question or logical argument, their actions replicate Saul Alinsky's Rule For Radicals #12.
As Wikipedia defines it :
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions."
Sadly, public officials are members of these social networks but fail to make statements about the assertions. They remain wholly silent on the issue.
The tactic is as cookie-cutter as the TOD agenda itself and they go hand-in-hand with the agenda. It is best described by Newington resident Gail Budrejko who states that city taxpayers in their town have been labeled negative, fear-mongerers, and cop-outs, and been labeled as trouble makers for attending public meetings and raising their concerns.
"Labeling and name calling is an infantile and divisionary tactic often used when people don't have facts to support their position. "
Who can disagree?
Mrs. Budrejko also asserts that the city wholly ignored the survey results in proceeding with Newington's high-density busway-oriented agenda. Ironically, their Plan of Development was also performed by the same company as Bristol's. Their fight to preserve their town has reached a tipping point. Will it be too late for Bristol?
It would seem that the ONLY thing important to some Bristol officials is the Sustainable Development project for Depot Square. They claim they are trying to grow Bristol but what they are doing is limiting choices as to where and what businesses can be established. . Could this perhaps be the main cause of the lack of growth in the development in Bristol?
Some well known businessmen in the city seem to think that is the case according to their testimony at the Plan of Development hearing on June 3rd. The public hearing is a state requirement. As indicated in the statute,
" A plan of conservation and development or any part thereof or amendment thereto prepared by the commission or any special committee shall be reviewed, and may be amended, by the commission prior to scheduling at least one public hearing on adoption."
Bristol's Plan of Conservation and Development covers not only the downtown, but the entire city and it's development for the next decade. It is also a legal document that the state uses to claim their housing agenda is a bottom-up or grassroots plan. The author of this blog concurs that is far from the truth. As I have previously stated, the PoCD is a document that is used in consideration of the receipt of grant monies as clearly indicated by the grants administrator of Bristol's testimony at the PoCD hearing.
I admire the woman's honesty and she is doing precisely what her job entails. But if the PoCD is a document that is to represent a "vision", but the question remains, "Whose vision should it represent?". Section 8-23 of Connecticut's General Statutes states that the PoCD must consider "social, economic and governmental conditions and trends,"Just exactly should these social trends to be obtained from in a bottom-up document? The Plan of development according to state statute also shall,
"be designed to promote, with the greatest efficiency and economy, the coordinated development of the municipality and the general welfare and prosperity of its people and identify areas where it is feasible and prudent."
Will the final document do so?
